Talk:Grandmother Graylocks
delete I'm not sure why this was deleted. Danny provided the summary: "duplicates info from only linked page." Couldn't the same be said about 80% of the songs on the wiki? Or any of the minor Sesame characters? —Scott (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC) :Yeah, Danny's been getting rid of a lot of pages lately for that reason or others, trying to cut down for whatever reason. In this case, though, it's not even a complete sentence. Back in October 2006, a page for Goshposh's unseen granddaddy in The Land of Tinkerdee was similarly deleted. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC) ::I guess a lot of these small pages are started with the presumption that someone else will come along and add to it later. Now that we're up to 17,000 pages, it's getting more and more difficult to find obscure things like this. ::In this particular case, Michael started the page back in April 2006. There must be something else that can be said about the character, the context in which she was mentioned, etc. —Scott (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC) :::The context is on the Goldilocks page, and apparently it's simply that Goldilocks had been staying with her (explaining why the character hadn't been on the show in several seasons). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC) ::::This "character" isn't even a character -- she's a throwaway reference in one scene by a minor character. There's literally nothing more to be said about her that isn't said in these two half-sentences. ::::I'm not trying to cut down the wiki... I'm just poking into some corners, and finding pages like this that we really don't need. If this page was started today, we would have deleted it straight away. We had different standards in April 2006. Now that our standards have changed, I think it's okay to do some of this clean-up. -- Danny (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC) :::::Is it possible that Grandmother Graylocks may potentially become an Aunt Matilda awaiting more details from other episodes? If there's no article for her on the wiki for someone to find, how would we notice? —Scott (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC) ::::::Okay, that makes sense. If you dig this page, let's keep it. -- Danny (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC) :::::::It's actually not possible that it would be another Aunt Matilda, given that she's not just an unseen releative but an unseen relative of a minor recurring character used merely to explain that character's absence, and to date, Goldilocks has appeared just a handful of times since that episode (with no references to any relatives). *But* I agree with Scott that there's no harm, especially since we have a sourced name and all, in having this here to find (a rewrite for complete sentences would help a lot). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC) ::::::::I don't actually have an opinion about the page either way. Like it or don't like it, I think it should have just as much opportunity to grow as any other page on the wiki. —Scott (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC) :::::::::Well, with this article, it's had a two year opportunity and is almost certainly not going to grow unless they bring back Goldilocks soon and have her talk a lot about her grandmother again (which is pretty unlikely). So that's a losing argument, *but* I don't think that's the main reason to keep an article like this anyway. With unseen relatives, if the name is sourced and the relationship and so on, I don't think it hurts to have a few static pages to find, especially since the info, when buried in a note somewhere in another character page or something, basically guarantees that it will be lost. So making it easier for readers to find quirky little bits isn't a bad thing as long as the names and relationship and so on are sourced (in contrast to a page for an unseen "guy Bob ran into on the bus"). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::And I just did a little tweaking, which I think improves it a fair bit. Again, it's a static page as far as new information or appearances, but we can nearly always spice articles like that up in some way. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC) ::::I'm okay with the page being deleted. --Minor muppetz 18:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC) :::::After reading all this, I think we should have a discussion at either Category talk:Unseen Characters or regarding what unseen characters should be given pages. --Minor muppetz 18:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Andrew, you won me over with your additions to the page... The bit about the hair color is fab. Maybe we could put a picture of Goldilocks on the page, with a caption about her being the granddaughter. I'm sorry that I've been deleting stuff without asking lately... I'll be more careful and patient. -- Danny (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC) :Yeah, it helps when a talkbox is raised first and some time allowed for folks to see it (to avoid any "Why was this deleted?" questions). Michael, I don't think it's really a category issue on the whole or has anything to do with a definable criteria we could set up, but as in this case, a matter of how much there is to say and how to make it interesting (which applies to all articles). That's the kind of thing best dealt with on the talk page on a case by case basis, which we do for everything (people, puppets, productions, etc). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC) ::Yeah, you're absolutely right. I was being hasty, and I apologize. -- Danny (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)